Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 12 March 2013

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht

Property Insurance: Discussion with Irish National Flood Forum

3:20 pm

Photo of Kevin HumphreysKevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their attendance today. My first experience of flooding was when my family home in Ballsbridge Avenue was flooded in the 1960s. There were further floods in 1986 and 2011. There was also a major flood event in Ringsend in 2002. It has been a long and difficult road. The last time the IIF appeared before this committee, I highlighted a survey of over 1,000 householders who could not get insurance, despite the fact that the OPW had carried out extensive flood protection works in their area. The industry questioned the certification provided and I felt that the IIF wanted to veto the professional engineers. The OPW was happy to certify according to international standards for up to a one-in-two-hundred year event, which is higher than what the witnesses have outlined to us today. I found the response from the IIF highly unsatisfactory.

The IIF also pointed out that the claims are much higher now because during the boom people finished their homes and businesses to a very high specification. However, I reminded them that they also charged higher premiums for insurance cover during that time, which they were not taking into account.

If flood protection work is carried out for a one in a 200 year event, the insurance companies are losing out on business. One of the most secure areas in Dublin, in terms of flood protection, is around Stella Gardens. A very high flood defence wall has been built and if that area floods again, we might as well write off most of Dublin city. The OPW has protected it to an enormous extent but not a week goes by without me getting a call from someone in that area who cannot get flood insurance. I got a call recently from someone whose parents had passed away and he wanted to sell the house but he could not do so because the prospective buyers cannot get a mortgage because there is no flood insurance available for the house. Action is the only option here. Given the number of witnesses who have come before us on this matter, we will have to issue a report with recommendations. I would like to see the committee working towards drawing up a report that will influence legislation, if needs be.

Would the witnesses agree that certification which is based on international standards should be accepted by insurance companies? The other issue is the geo-coding, which must be broken down to a much finer level. Some of the insurance brokers are very good in that they will visit the premises and the area and then make a case to the insurance companies. They will point out that a property is twenty feet above sea level and will never flood, even if it is in a designated flood-risk area.

I always find something very funny. We live in the shadow of the Aviva Stadium, which is named for one of the major insurance companies. However, in my area Aviva will not provide flood insurance, yet every night one can look at an advertisement that is in the so-called flood plain in which a man gets out his jacket to bring his son to a rugby match. It is ironic.

We have to investigate the cartel further and we must have evidence about that. With regard to the figures, the Insurance Federation was talking about 10,000, but the witnesses say it is 50,000. Have the witnesses looked at those figures a little more tightly? There is slippage for many different reasons. Sometimes it is people with goodwill trying to protect the environment. They overlook the traumatic effect of a household not being insured where the OPW is trying to press on but is delayed because of planning. Where people's homes are in danger, should there be a balanced structure? We have been talking about putting a balance there of protecting life and property over a short-term flood prevention. Where should the balance be and do the witnesses have an opinion on that?

It is a shame that, as Deputy Stanley pointed out, we have not hit the targets on spending. It is mainly because of the slippages. We will have to look at the consultants there.